Just like that

M&M Guy

deecee wrote
Bob, however in basketball a proper defensive stance the foot will ALWAYS be outside the shoulder. I dont see how a defensive player can get low to play defense and keep his whole body within his shoulder. Physically impossible.

That's fine, but don't forget the rule on guarding (4-23-1): "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have LGP if contact occurs."

Iirc, there was an interp that stated the defender's legs could only be shoulder's width apart. (Or was it a college interp?)

M&M Guy

Snaqwells wrote
Sure, but it's not getting him into the hall, no matter how many times you do it.

Maybe he'll be like Jim Rice and get in on the last ballot.

(Anything I can do to link him with the Red Sox...) 😀

Jurassic Referee

M&M Guy wrote
That's fine, but don't forget the rule on guarding (4-23-1): "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have LGP if contact occurs."

Iirc, there was an interp that stated the defender's legs could only be shoulder's width apart. (Or was it a college interp?)

This might be what you're thinking of:

From the POE's in last year's NFHS rule book:
POE#3-DISPLACEMENT-(B): "A legal screener must be stationary prior to contact within his/her vertical plane(hands, arms, legs and feet no more than shoulder width apart).

Jurassic Referee

M&M Guy wrote
Maybe he'll be like Jim Rice and get in on the last ballot.

(Anything I can do to link him with the Red Sox...) 😃

Shut up.

Adam

Well, at least he verified his identity.

deecee

M&M Guy wrote
That's fine, but don't forget the rule on guarding (4-23-1): "A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have LGP if contact occurs."

Iirc, there was an interp that stated the defender's legs could only be shoulder's width apart. (Or was it a college interp?)

I agree -- I am just talking about the defender playing on ball defense -- there is no mention of shoulder width -- as that would make playing defense impossible on ball.

M&M Guy

deecee wrote
I agree -- I am just talking about the defender playing on ball defense -- there is no mention of shoulder width -- as that would make playing defense impossible on ball.

You might want to double-check the Old One's post on last year's POE.

It doesn't make playing defense impossible. If the player can play better defense by standing on thier head, more power to them. They just have to be aware of the rules on guarding and who would be more responsible for contact if and when it occurs.

CMHCoachNRef

bob jenkins wrote
True. But sometimes the defender's foot is outside the shoulders so the "trip" is the proper call.

Bob,
I am sure that you will be able to quote this one, but I could not find it. I see that when a SCREENER is setting a screen, the screener must "stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance approximately shoulder width apart, but I could not find that requirement under legal guarding position.

As has been pointed out, a good defensive stance really requires the players feet to be outside the shoulders. Additionally, it would be impossible for a defender stay with the dribbler with this requirement since the offensive ballhandler does not have the same restriction.

But, I have already observed that you are spot on with every rule interpretation I have seen thus far.

deecee

M&M Guy wrote
You might want to double-check the Old One's post on last year's POE.

It doesn't make playing defense impossible. If the player can play better defense by standing on thier head, more power to them. They just have to be aware of the rules on guarding and who would be more responsible for contact if and when it occurs.

The old ones POE pertained to legal screen.

M&M Guy

deecee wrote
The old ones POE pertained to legal screen.

Right, but that same theory applies to guarding as well. I posted the rule on guarding, and the fact that the player cannot extend a leg into the path of the player. The POE just clarifies where "extending" starts (outside shoulder width).

Remember, it doesn't say the player cannot have their feet out there, just that they no longer are considered to have LGP and are thus more reponsible if contact occurs.

Scratch85

bob jenkins wrote
True. But sometimes the defender's foot is outside the shoulders so the "trip" is the proper call.

I do not have the interp to confirm this, but doesn't it require the offensive player to have his torso past the defender. IOW, if it is not torso-to-torso contact and the defender's legs are wider than shoulder width it would indeed be a trip.

But on the other hand, if the offensive player just leaned to one side to avoid torso-to-torso contact but his torso was not past the defender, it would be a block.

Am I getting this right?

mick

deecee wrote
I agree -- I am just talking about the defender playing on ball defense -- there is no mention of shoulder width -- as that would make playing defense impossible on ball.

I played with a wide stance, as you suggest.
When the ball when to my right, I went to the right.
When the ball went to my left, I went to my left.

When the low defender is moving his feet, he is less apt to be called for tripping, than if he just left 'em out there.

CMHCoachNRef

M&M Guy wrote
Right, but that same theory applies to guarding as well. I posted the rule on guarding, and the fact that the player cannot extend a leg into the path of the player. The POE just clarifies where "extending" starts (outside shoulder width).

Remember, it doesn't say the player cannot have their feet out there, just that they no longer are considered to have LGP and are thus more reponsible if contact occurs.

M&M, if you show me a defender who plays with his feet shoulder width apart, I'd be willing to bet he carries a clip board, stat sheet and pencil during the game.

Defenders NEVER play with their feet shoulder width apart. If a player is in a good defensive stance (feet about six to twelve inches outside the shoulders), has both feet FLAT ON THE FLOOR, is setting a solid trap with a teammate as the dribbler attempts to squeeze in between, I don't see how an official can call a trip on the defender (except for the OP team in the post IF this is what, indeed, happened). If the defender sticks his leg out into the path of the defender and the contact is made with the leg, I am OK with the block call. But, if the defender's feet are flat on the floor and he is assuming a good defensive stance and the ballhandler trips over the stationary foot, I don't see how this can be a foul on the defense.

mick

CMHCoachNRef wrote
Defenders NEVER play with their feet shoulder width apart.

...Unless they're attempting to take one for the team. 😉

bob jenkins

CMHCoachNRef wrote
Defenders NEVER play with their feet shoulder width apart. If a player is in a good defensive stance (feet about six to twelve inches outside the shoulders), has both feet FLAT ON THE FLOOR, is setting a solid trap with a teammate as the dribbler attempts to squeeze in between, I don't see how an official can call a trip on the defender (except for the OP team in the post IF this is what, indeed, happened). If the defender sticks his leg out into the path of the defender and the contact is made with the leg, I am OK with the block call. But, if the defender's feet are flat on the floor and he is assuming a good defensive stance and the ballhandler trips over the stationary foot, I don't see how this can be a foul on the defense.

I would generally agree with this -- and my earlier "shoulder width" comment was meant to be "approximately." Perhaps better would be "elbow width" when in a deefensive stance.

And, just like the player who stands with the feet shoulder width apart, there are thosw who stand (or get caught in) a stance that's too wide -- and that becomes a block (in my game) if the offense trips over that defender's foot.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Jurassic Referee wrote
The principle of verticality is applicable to the defender.
1)Rule 4-45-1-"Legal guarding position must be obtained initially and movement thereafter must be legal."
2) Rule 4-45-5- "the offensive player whether on the floor or airborne may NOT "clear out" or cause contact within the defender's vertical plane which is a foul.
3) Rule 4-45-6-"The defender may may not "belly up" or use the lower part of the body or arms to cause contact OUTSIDE his her vertical plane which is a foul"

You only have 2 options if the defender has LGP and the dribbler trips over the foot of that defender...(1) a cheap player control foul, or (2) no call.

JR:

Where have you been? You have been conspicuous by your absence. Your disappearence has been the subject of many conspiracy theories and a documentary was being planed for the Discovery Channel.

Welcome back.

MTD, Sr.

CMHCoachNRef

mick wrote
...Unless they're attempting to take one for the team. 😉

Mick, you are absolutely right. But, in most of these cases, a blocking foul is the result since the "skinny as a stick" defender is so easy for the offensive player to slide around. The defender then tries to lean into the path of the offensive player.

I see far more PC fouls being drawn by the defender in a good solid stance, obtaining a legal guarding position and maintaining that position until the torso-to-torso contact.

mick

CMHCoachNRef wrote
I see far more PC fouls being drawn by the defender in a good solid stance, obtaining a legal guarding position and maintaining that position until the torso-to-torso contact.

Agreed.
Solid, wide stance up top, but shoulder-width stance in the paint.

BillyMac

I have always been of the opinion that there is a difference between tripping, and being tripped.

That said, what if a player is in legal guarding position, and has their feet wider than their shoulders, and, for sake of argument, has obtained that position on the court, and remains in that position for, let's say, oh, ten seconds, motionless, and then a dribbler tries to dribble past this motionless defender and trips over the defender's leg. I have a no call. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Please.

Adam

BillyMac wrote
I have always been of the opinion that there is a difference between tripping, and being tripped.

That said, what if a player is in legal guarding position, and has their feet wider than their shoulders, and, for sake of argument, has obtained that position on the court, and remains in that position for, let's say, oh, ten seconds, motionless, and then a dribbler tries to dribble past this motionless defender and trips over the defender's leg. I have a no call. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Please.

How much wider than the shoulders? I think that matters.

« Previous Page Next Page »